Courtesy: Supreme Court of the Philippines
The Supreme Court will ultimately settle the disputed number of votes needed to convict Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial, with a House prosecutor saying a legal challenge is likely regardless of how the Senate Impeachment Court rules on the issue.
House prosecutor and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said either side could bring the matter before the high court, whether the impeachment court maintains the requirement of 16 votes or adopts a lower threshold.
“Actually, no. Our expectation is that whatever the decision may be, someone will probably go to the Supreme Court, whether we are talking about 16 (votes to convict) or we are talking about a lower number,” Ridon said.
“I think someone will always go to the Supreme Court, whichever party,” he added.
Ridon was responding to a hypothetical question on the legal recourse available if the impeachment court changes its interpretation of the two-thirds requirement and convicts Duterte with fewer than 16 votes.
The Constitution provides that no person shall be convicted in an impeachment trial “without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
The impeachment court has previously taken the position that 16 votes are required to convict Duterte.
Ridon said the prosecution was not seeking a particular interpretation of the threshold and would leave the matter to the senator-judges.
“There are already statements from those mentioned. I think the presiding officer has a position, the court spokesperson also has some clarification,” he said.
He added that the issue could still be revisited.
“But we will see. Because that matter is, I think, not yet over,” Ridon said.
Gatchalian: Court to finalize schedule
Meanwhile, the Senate will rule this week on adjusting the impeachment court’s schedule, by moving its session from mornings to afternoons, to give the prosecution and defense additional time to present their arguments.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said Sunday that the Senate would finalize the proposed schedule this week.
Under the proposal, regular legislative sessions would be held in the morning, with impeachment proceedings moved to the afternoon.
“We will finalize this proposal this week. We need to give the parties ample time to adjust accordingly,” Gatchalian said.
Impeachment court spokesperson Atty. Reginald Tongol confirmed that the trial would proceed as scheduled at 10 a.m. Monday.
The adjustment was initially proposed by Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri to address calendar conflicts between regular legislative duties and the six- to seven-hour impeachment sessions.
Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson earlier said the trial was likely to be moved to the afternoon starting in September, with the Senate majority bloc supporting the change to maximize time for both legislative work and the impeachment proceedings.
Under the proposed arrangement, regular Senate sessions could run from Monday to Wednesday, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., followed by impeachment proceedings beginning at 2:30 p.m. and continuing until at least 7:30 p.m.
The impeachment court hopes to finish the trial by December, although continuing delays could push the proceedings into 2027 if the current pace is maintained.
Duterte’s defense team said it was prepared to comply with whatever schedule the impeachment court adopts.
“Defense will comply with whatever schedule the Impeachment Court may decide upon. We are prepared to proceed in accordance with the Court’s directives,” defense trial spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa said in a statement.
PSA testimony to establish fund recipients
Ridon also said the prosecution plans to present Philippine Statistics Authority testimony to establish whether individuals named in acknowledgment receipts used to account for Duterte’s confidential fund expenditures exist in Philippine civil registry records.
He said the PSA testimony would help the Senate Impeachment Court assess the reliability of documents submitted to account for the confidential funds and determine where the paper trail ends.
“It was mentioned during the House Justice Committee proceedings that, according to a PSA study, individuals such as Mary Grace Piattos, Milky Secuya and others were neither born, married nor recorded as having died in the Philippines,” Ridon said during an online press conference.
During House justice proceedings in April, PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande testified that searches yielded no matching birth, marriage or death records for Piattos, Secuya and Kokoy Villamin. Searches for Irene Tan produced multiple matches because it is a common name.
The PSA has previously explained that further verification may be possible if additional identifying information, such as the names of parents and the date or place of a vital event, is provided.
The prosecution, however, maintains that the negative search results become significant when considered alongside the acknowledgment receipts, signatures, dates and other liquidation records submitted for audit.
Names to appear on receipts
The disputed names appeared on acknowledgment receipts used to liquidate confidential fund expenditures, Ridon noted.
The prosecution said identifying the recipients is necessary to determine whether the money was received by the intended recipients and spent for purposes allowed under existing rules.
“That is where we see the trail of these confidential funds coming to a halt—at the acknowledgment receipts,” Ridon said.
The PSA evidence is expected to complement testimony from Office of the Vice President personnel, Commission on Audit officials and National Bureau of Investigation forensic experts.
Former OVP special disbursing officer Gina Acosta testified last Monday that Duterte instructed her to turn over P125 million to then-security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica after the money was withdrawn in December 2022.